Sun Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is false.

[itfitzme]

Oh gee williky wizz.. A "COMMENT" on the ACRIM site about proxy studies? I thought you warmers LOVED proxy studies of mud, bugs, and trees.

Did ya miss this??



If ACRIM IS CORRECT --- the sun is actually building at a rate equal to or EXCEEDING the previous 300 yr period.

Welcome to REAL science.. Where NOTHING is ever "settled".. Guess we need 20 more yrs of satellite observation to even measure the power of the Sun... Never mind its spectral distribution.. That experiment is on another couple satellites..

I don't know who your talking about with "I thought you warmers LOVED proxy studies of mud, bugs, and trees.". The fact of the matter is that all measurements are "proxies". Even measurement of temperature with a mercury thermometer uses volume of the mercury, and the height of the column, as a proxy for heat content.

I haven't missed what you noted. I am still wondering why it is that the author of Wiki chose to not present the sunspots as a reasonable proxy for TSI. And, I am wondering how accurate and precise the TSI measures are, over the long term, given that database

What I am doing is, unlike you, being honest.

WHO ------ ever said sunspot numbers are a proxy for TSI?

You don't understand the meaning of the term proxy if you think an actual thermometer is a proxy measurement. That mercury will rise ONLY with a change in temperature (or I suppose gravity).. Not dependent on umteen other variables.

ALL of the major claims of AGW theory hysteria ARE BASED on proxy studies... The unprecendented RATE of rise, the AMOUNT of rise, ect..

Oh, and it will change with pressure as well. Let's not forget pressure. Standard temperature and pressure....

Your problem is that you are definitively arrogant.

I do know the meaning of the term proxy. And, the difference is in terms of the precision of the measure and it's acceptance in standard practice. The problem is you have idealized perceptions of reality with artificial divisions based on terminology usage.

Are you simply not reading all the material? Your graph is the result of using sun spot numbers as a proxy for TSI. How do you think they have data going back to 1600? You think there were satellites in 1650? How was solar output determined in 1650?

"Direct irradiance measurements have only been available during the last three cycles and are based on a composite of many different observing satellites."

"Most important among these proxies is the record of sunspot observations that has been recorded since ~1610"

Do you have something different?

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't know who your talking about with "I thought you warmers LOVED proxy studies of mud, bugs, and trees.". The fact of the matter is that all measurements are "proxies". Even measurement of temperature with a mercury thermometer uses volume of the mercury, and the height of the column, as a proxy for heat content.

I haven't missed what you noted. I am still wondering why it is that the author of Wiki chose to not present the sunspots as a reasonable proxy for TSI. And, I am wondering how accurate and precise the TSI measures are, over the long term, given that database

What I am doing is, unlike you, being honest.

WHO ------ ever said sunspot numbers are a proxy for TSI?

You don't understand the meaning of the term proxy if you think an actual thermometer is a proxy measurement. That mercury will rise ONLY with a change in temperature (or I suppose gravity).. Not dependent on umteen other variables.

ALL of the major claims of AGW theory hysteria ARE BASED on proxy studies... The unprecendented RATE of rise, the AMOUNT of rise, ect..

Oh, and it will change with pressure as well. Let's not forget pressure. Standard temperature and pressure....

Your problem is that you are definitively arrogant.

I do know the meaning of the term proxy. And, the difference is in terms of the precision of the measure and it's acceptance in standard practice. The problem is you have idealized perceptions of reality with artificial divisions based on terminology usage.

Are you simply not reading all the material? Your graph is the result of using sun spot numbers as a proxy for TSI. How do you think they have data going back to 1600? You think there were satellites in 1650? How was solar output determined in 1650?

"Direct irradiance measurements have only been available during the last three cycles and are based on a composite of many different observing satellites."

"Most important among these proxies is the record of sunspot observations that has been recorded since ~1610"

Do you have something different?

They DID NOT use sunspot numbers as proxy readings of TSI. They used sunspot numbers to make the time resolution MORE ACCURATE by correlating the REAL proxy time scales they used with actual occurences of solar peaks and valleys..

The TSI proxies are based on radioactive isotope readings. Much like many of the temp. proxies. Except that HERE for TSI we are "proxying" ONE NUMBER.. NOT attempting to construct stupid ass "global averages" from a sparse number of DIFFERENT proxies from all over the globe.. A much EASIER and accurate and simpler task..

And pressure in a closed thermometer vessel is not gonna change significantly...
But of course --- you knew that grasshopper.......

I'm only arrogant because I'm dealing with a phoney who goes and swipes factoids off the web, misinterprets them and attempts to con people into believing that when you call me an asshole, they think you have some cred..

I don't NEED to be arrogant with folks who are honest..

 

[itfitzme]

WHO ------ ever said sunspot numbers are a proxy for TSI?

You don't understand the meaning of the term proxy if you think an actual thermometer is a proxy measurement. That mercury will rise ONLY with a change in temperature (or I suppose gravity).. Not dependent on umteen other variables.

ALL of the major claims of AGW theory hysteria ARE BASED on proxy studies... The unprecendented RATE of rise, the AMOUNT of rise, ect..

Oh, and it will change with pressure as well. Let's not forget pressure. Standard temperature and pressure....

Your problem is that you are definitively arrogant.

I do know the meaning of the term proxy. And, the difference is in terms of the precision of the measure and it's acceptance in standard practice. The problem is you have idealized perceptions of reality with artificial divisions based on terminology usage.

Are you simply not reading all the material? Your graph is the result of using sun spot numbers as a proxy for TSI. How do you think they have data going back to 1600? You think there were satellites in 1650? How was solar output determined in 1650?

"Direct irradiance measurements have only been available during the last three cycles and are based on a composite of many different observing satellites."

"Most important among these proxies is the record of sunspot observations that has been recorded since ~1610"

Do you have something different?

They DID NOT use sunspot numbers as proxy readings of TSI. They used sunspot numbers to make the time resolution MORE ACCURATE by correlating the REAL proxy time scales they used with actual occurences of solar peaks and valleys..

The TSI proxies are based on radioactive isotope readings. Much like many of the temp. proxies. Except that HERE for TSI we are "proxying" ONE NUMBER.. NOT attempting to construct stupid ass "global averages" from a sparse number of DIFFERENT proxies from all over the globe.. A much EASIER and accurate and simpler task..

And pressure in a closed thermometer vessel is not gonna change significantly...
But of course --- you knew that grasshopper.......

I'm only arrogant because I'm dealing with a phoney who goes and swipes factoids off the web, misinterprets them and attempts to con people into believing that when you call me an asshole, they think you have some cred..

I don't NEED to be arrogant with folks who are honest..

Before 1980?

"For the time before satellite measurements became available, the solar radiation variations can be inferred from cosmogenic isotopes (10Be, 14C) and from the sunspot number.Naked-eye observations of sunspots date back to ancient times, but it was only after the invention of the telescope in 1607 that it became possible to routinely monitor the number, size and position of these ‘stains’ on the surface of the Sun"

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-3.html

"These satellite data have been used in combination with the historically recorded sunspot number, records of cosmogenic isotopes, and the characteristics of other Sun-like stars to estimate the solar radiation over the last 1,000 years (Eddy, 1976; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997). "


Dude, you are the epitome of arrogance. OH, and "factoid" is called a "factoid" because it is what? Oh, a fact. What the F do you think you are talking about?

 

[itfitzme]

SORCE » Total Solar Irradiance Data

"Proxies of the TSI based on sunspot observations, tree ring records, ice cores, and cosmogenic isotopes have given estimates of the solar influence on the Earth that extend back thousands of years, and correlate with major climatic events on the Earth. These estimates extrapolate many recent detailed observations to long-term observations of fewer (or even one) measurement. For example, accurate TSI measurements from the last 25 years are correlated with solar measurements of sunspots and faculae; these correlations can then be used to extrapolate the TSI to time periods prior to accurate space-borne measurements, since the solar records extend back 100 years for faculae and 400 years for sunspots. "

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh, and it will change with pressure as well. Let's not forget pressure. Standard temperature and pressure....

Your problem is that you are definitively arrogant.

I do know the meaning of the term proxy. And, the difference is in terms of the precision of the measure and it's acceptance in standard practice. The problem is you have idealized perceptions of reality with artificial divisions based on terminology usage.

Are you simply not reading all the material? Your graph is the result of using sun spot numbers as a proxy for TSI. How do you think they have data going back to 1600? You think there were satellites in 1650? How was solar output determined in 1650?

"Direct irradiance measurements have only been available during the last three cycles and are based on a composite of many different observing satellites."

"Most important among these proxies is the record of sunspot observations that has been recorded since ~1610"

Do you have something different?

They DID NOT use sunspot numbers as proxy readings of TSI. They used sunspot numbers to make the time resolution MORE ACCURATE by correlating the REAL proxy time scales they used with actual occurences of solar peaks and valleys..

The TSI proxies are based on radioactive isotope readings. Much like many of the temp. proxies. Except that HERE for TSI we are "proxying" ONE NUMBER.. NOT attempting to construct stupid ass "global averages" from a sparse number of DIFFERENT proxies from all over the globe.. A much EASIER and accurate and simpler task..

And pressure in a closed thermometer vessel is not gonna change significantly...
But of course --- you knew that grasshopper.......

I'm only arrogant because I'm dealing with a phoney who goes and swipes factoids off the web, misinterprets them and attempts to con people into believing that when you call me an asshole, they think you have some cred..

I don't NEED to be arrogant with folks who are honest..

Before 1980?

"For the time before satellite measurements became available, the solar radiation variations can be inferred from cosmogenic isotopes (10Be, 14C) and from the sunspot number. Naked-eye observations of sunspots date back to ancient times, but it was only after the invention of the telescope in 1607 that it became possible to routinely monitor the number, size and position of these ‘stains’ on the surface of the Sun"

1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

"These satellite data have been used in combination with the historically recorded sunspot number, records of cosmogenic isotopes, and the characteristics of other Sun-like stars to estimate the solar radiation over the last 1,000 years (Eddy, 1976; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997). "


Dude, you are the epitome of arrogance. OH, and "factoid" is called a "factoid" because it is what? Oh, a fact. What the F do you think you are talking about?

Factoids are annoying perpendicular facts spewed with the sole purpose to distract and disrail or to enhance the stature of the factoid spouter..

Kinda like the stuff you just spewed which doesn't really add anything to this conversation.
Sorry man.. I'm TRYING to communicate.. You MAY BE trying to learn.. Which is the reason you and I are still talking.. So if you're learning crap -- congrats.. That's why we both are here.

What didn't you understand about 1980??? They take samples that are 100s of years old TODAY and assess what the TSI WAS in 1600 by isotope measurement.. And you're point is ???????????????????????????????????

 

[itfitzme]

They DID NOT use sunspot numbers as proxy readings of TSI. They used sunspot numbers to make the time resolution MORE ACCURATE by correlating the REAL proxy time scales they used with actual occurences of solar peaks and valleys..

The TSI proxies are based on radioactive isotope readings. Much like many of the temp. proxies. Except that HERE for TSI we are "proxying" ONE NUMBER.. NOT attempting to construct stupid ass "global averages" from a sparse number of DIFFERENT proxies from all over the globe.. A much EASIER and accurate and simpler task..

And pressure in a closed thermometer vessel is not gonna change significantly...
But of course --- you knew that grasshopper.......

I'm only arrogant because I'm dealing with a phoney who goes and swipes factoids off the web, misinterprets them and attempts to con people into believing that when you call me an asshole, they think you have some cred..

I don't NEED to be arrogant with folks who are honest..

Before 1980?

"For the time before satellite measurements became available, the solar radiation variations can be inferred from cosmogenic isotopes (10Be, 14C) and from the sunspot number. Naked-eye observations of sunspots date back to ancient times, but it was only after the invention of the telescope in 1607 that it became possible to routinely monitor the number, size and position of these ‘stains’ on the surface of the Sun"

1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

"These satellite data have been used in combination with the historically recorded sunspot number, records of cosmogenic isotopes, and the characteristics of other Sun-like stars to estimate the solar radiation over the last 1,000 years (Eddy, 1976; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997). "


Dude, you are the epitome of arrogance. OH, and "factoid" is called a "factoid" because it is what? Oh, a fact. What the F do you think you are talking about?

Factoids are annoying perpendicular facts spewed with the sole purpose to distract and disrail or to enhance the stature of the factoid spouter..

Kinda like the stuff you just spewed which doesn't really add anything to this conversation.
Sorry man.. I'm TRYING to communicate.. You MAY BE trying to learn.. Which is the reason you and I are still talking.. So if you're learning crap -- congrats.. That's why we both are here.

What didn't you understand about 1980??? They take samples that are 100s of years old TODAY and assess what the TSI WAS in 1600 by isotope measurement.. And you're point is ???????????????????????????????????

Yeah. Prior to the satellites used after about 1980, isotopes, sunspot numbers, and other proxies were used to determine the historical TSI.

The fact is that you are an arrogant asshole that simply creates non-existent arguments so you can make yourself feel all important. The reality is that this simply limits your ability to learn.

 

[flacaltenn]

Before 1980?

"For the time before satellite measurements became available, the solar radiation variations can be inferred from cosmogenic isotopes (10Be, 14C) and from the sunspot number. Naked-eye observations of sunspots date back to ancient times, but it was only after the invention of the telescope in 1607 that it became possible to routinely monitor the number, size and position of these ‘stains’ on the surface of the Sun"

1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

"These satellite data have been used in combination with the historically recorded sunspot number, records of cosmogenic isotopes, and the characteristics of other Sun-like stars to estimate the solar radiation over the last 1,000 years (Eddy, 1976; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993, 1997; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997). "


Dude, you are the epitome of arrogance. OH, and "factoid" is called a "factoid" because it is what? Oh, a fact. What the F do you think you are talking about?

Factoids are annoying perpendicular facts spewed with the sole purpose to distract and disrail or to enhance the stature of the factoid spouter..

Kinda like the stuff you just spewed which doesn't really add anything to this conversation.
Sorry man.. I'm TRYING to communicate.. You MAY BE trying to learn.. Which is the reason you and I are still talking.. So if you're learning crap -- congrats.. That's why we both are here.

What didn't you understand about 1980??? They take samples that are 100s of years old TODAY and assess what the TSI WAS in 1600 by isotope measurement.. And you're point is ???????????????????????????????????

Yeah. Prior to the satellites used after about 1980, isotopes, sunspot numbers, and other proxies were used to determine the historical TSI.

The fact is that you are an arrogant asshole that simply creates non-existent arguments so you can make yourself feel all important. The reality is that this simply limits your ability to learn.

I said pretty much the same thing a few pages back.. Except that I never said that sunspots were a proxy for TSI. Sunspot number is a clue and a tool for making the proxies more accurate --- but they are NOT a proxy by themselves.. Can't be --- they don't measure absolute W/m2 TSI..

And the sentence should read ----

Prior to the satellites used after about 1980, isotopes, xxxxxxxx, and other proxies ARE used to determine the historical TSI.

The measurement techniques didn't exist for these studies except for the past 40 yrs or so.
They are recent tools that have been perfected and developed. Makes a diff in the understanding..

I'm ignoring the pissy assessment of my personality.. If I need one -- I'll let ya know..

 

[itfitzme]

TSI: Total Solar Irradiance:

Figure 1

Figure 2

So, there is the conflict. Those two images, above, are inconsistent. Sunspot number (along with other data) is used as a proxy for TSI. Which yields;

Figure 3

This appears to the the first best estimate of TSI and ends in about 2000.

The more recent and accurate measure, beginning in 1980 and ending 2013, would be as shown below. With the satellite measures adjusted, appears to be the most complete.

Figure 4

The problem really is that none of these present a complete record. Each begins and ends at different and overlapping years.

Figure 4 shows the TSI with a relatively constant RMS value from 1980 to 2013. I don't see the tail end of figure 1 and figure 2 as being representative of the data presented in figure 4. Figure 3 and 4, under visual examination, show the TSI as being relatively flat from 1980 on.

Figure 1 and 3 are the same, for the sunspot number.

Figure 2 and 3 do match, on a point by point basis, until the last peak on 2000. That is where the discrepancy occurs. Ignoring the last peak at 2000, figure 4 just extends the line for figure 2 and 3 parallel to the x axis with no real increase or decrease.

Just on a visual inspection, we have temp and co2 increasing from 1980 on while TSI remains relatively stable.

This would be better done with the data plotted in xsl.

-----------------------


SORCE » Total Solar Irradiance Data

1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Tim Cullen: The Problem with TSI ? Total Solar Irradiance | Tallbloke's Talkshop

Solar cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greg's TSI Page

 

[itfitzme]

Here is the correlation equation in integral form



Here is the Fourier transform for the cosine term



What you may notice is the integral of the product of two functions. In the correlation equation, they are X(t) and Y(t). In the Fourier transform they are s(x) and cos(w*x). (2*pi*n/P, to be exact).

The fourier series is, of course, only over one period. Going from minus infinity to infinity is redundant.

The mean value for the cosine is, of course, zero. s(x) also has a mean of zero as Fourier transforms are concerned with periodic functions that are symmetric about the x axis. SO, the X_bar and Y_bar terms in the correlation equation are zero. They drop out.

The bottom of the correlation equation are two integrals which are basically the RMS values for the signal and the cosine, (when the square root is taken).

So, all in all, it should be apparent that, fundamentally, Fourier series basically evaluates the correlation of each cosine and sine term for an orthogonal set of functions.

As long as you have a complete set of functions, correlation can be used to resolve any function into a set of some other functions.

If you really aren't sure, it is easy to demonstrate with XLS. Just do a discrete time table. Columns can be set up for t, cos(nwt), and sin(nwt). A signal, s(x) as a squarewave is easy enough to use by picking some period and switching the values between -1 and 1. Then, just calculation the correlation values for each cos and sin against the squarewave. I did this on my TI-89. It comes out close enough that it is fairly obvious.

 

[flacaltenn]

You really are a clown and con.. How long do you think it would take to prove that?
And why have you decided to tag this thread with your little pretend math act?

 

[itfitzme]

You really are a clown and con.. How long do you think it would take to prove that?
And why have you decided to tag this thread with your little pretend math act?

So you have no math skill and can't understand what I presented. Why do you feel the need to repeatedly point out that you haven't a clue. Wouldn't the smart thing to do is to take the opportunity to learn something?

 

[flacaltenn]

You really are a clown and con.. How long do you think it would take to prove that?
And why have you decided to tag this thread with your little pretend math act?

So you have no math skill and can't understand what I presented. Why do you feel the need to repeatedly point out that you haven't a clue.

Oh I got clues alright.. Make it worth my while to give em to you...
Other than the fact that most reasonable folks hate con men...

How about a clue?

Correlation to calculate r2 is a special case of the "correlation function" as defined in basic math. NOT applicable to general use unless you know a priori the relative time offset of the signal vectors.

Nobody would write it as 2 IDENTICAL INTEGRALS in the numerator. It would be represented as the square of ONE of those integrals. (Unless you stole it from a website trying to make a specific point and had no idea what you stole).

Cosine Transforms are ALSO just a special case of Fourier transform and have much limited use in analyzing freq. domain characteristics. True Fourier analysis produces a complex result using BOTH sine and cosine (or the equiv e exp(-jwt). It produces complex pair data so that both MAGNITUDE and PHASE of the resultantant bins is preserved. It also doesn't a SCALAR result like your r2 attempt.. It produces a complete VECTOR result on the frequency axis.. (DFT can be done one bin at a time)


A Fourier transform is NOT equivalent to correlation. and contrary to your assertion, even the special case of Cosine transforms are not limited to ONE PERIOD of the basis function. By DEFINITION --- basis members at the higher frequencies cover MANY CYCLES of the basis function..

You can GET CORRELATION of two vectors from the Freq. Domain by multiplying their spectra and prior conjugation of the appropriate portion of one of the complex inputs..

All that --- top of my head, 1/2 my brain tied behind my back, no wiki, no internet..
So --- I'm prepared to reduce your stolen booty to horseshit.. Tell me why it would be worth it to me. And WHAT RELEVANCE you think it has to discussing the Sun....

So much wrong --- it would take me awhile...

 

[itfitzme]

You really are a clown and con.. How long do you think it would take to prove that?
And why have you decided to tag this thread with your little pretend math act?

So you have no math skill and can't understand what I presented. Why do you feel the need to repeatedly point out that you haven't a clue.

Oh I got clues alright.. Make it worth my while to give em to you...
Other than the fact that most reasonable folks hate con men...

How about a clue?

Correlation to calculate r2 is a special case of the "correlation function" as defined in basic math. NOT applicable to general use unless you know a priori the relative time offset of the signal vectors.

Nobody would write it as 2 IDENTICAL INTEGRALS in the numerator. It would be represented as the square of ONE of those integrals. (Unless you stole it from a website trying to make a specific point and had no idea what you stole).

Cosine Transforms are ALSO just a special case of Fourier transform and have much limited use in analyzing freq. domain characteristics. True Fourier analysis produces a complex result using BOTH sine and cosine (or the equiv e exp(-jwt). It produces complex pair data so that both MAGNITUDE and PHASE of the resultantant bins is preserved. It also doesn't a SCALAR result like your r2 attempt.. It produces a complete VECTOR result on the frequency axis.. (DFT can be done one bin at a time)


A Fourier transform is NOT equivalent to correlation. and contrary to your assertion, even the special case of Cosine transforms are not limited to ONE PERIOD of the basis function. By DEFINITION --- basis members at the higher frequencies cover MANY CYCLES of the basis function..

You can GET CORRELATION of two vectors from the Freq. Domain by multiplying their spectra and conjugating the appropriate portion of the complex result..

All that --- top of my head, 1/2 my brain tied behind my back, no wiki, no internet..
So --- I'm prepared to reduce your stolen booty to horseshit.. Tell me why it would be worth it to me. And WHAT RELEVANCE you think it has to discussing the Sun....

So much wrong --- it would take me awhile...

So, what is your point?

You are the one that had a hissy fit when I pointed out that the Fourier transform is simply correlation.

Now you have changed your mind?

Yeah, sure, you find that equation in that form anywhere....

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW Mr. Snowjob.. It don't WANT to do this. If I wanted to ignore all your bullshit., there's a button for that.. We should only have this grudge cage match if YOU think its its important.

You're NOT on ignore because you're not a head case.. Or maybe I need to re-evaluate..

 

[itfitzme]

BTW Mr. Snowjob.. It don't WANT to do this. If I wanted to ignore all your bullshit., there's a button for that.. We should only have this grudge cage match if YOU think its its important.

You're NOT on ignore because you're not a head case.. Or maybe I need to re-evaluate..

You are the one that said, "Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps"

So, now that we agree that is is just a method of correlation, what was your point?

My point is that you are full of shit, as that, as you say, "Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps" has absolutely no relevance. You are, at best, just presenting word salad.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you have no math skill and can't understand what I presented. Why do you feel the need to repeatedly point out that you haven't a clue.

Oh I got clues alright.. Make it worth my while to give em to you...
Other than the fact that most reasonable folks hate con men...

How about a clue?

Correlation to calculate r2 is a special case of the "correlation function" as defined in basic math. NOT applicable to general use unless you know a priori the relative time offset of the signal vectors.

Nobody would write it as 2 IDENTICAL INTEGRALS in the numerator. It would be represented as the square of ONE of those integrals. (Unless you stole it from a website trying to make a specific point and had no idea what you stole).

Cosine Transforms are ALSO just a special case of Fourier transform and have much limited use in analyzing freq. domain characteristics. True Fourier analysis produces a complex result using BOTH sine and cosine (or the equiv e exp(-jwt). It produces complex pair data so that both MAGNITUDE and PHASE of the resultantant bins is preserved. It also doesn't a SCALAR result like your r2 attempt.. It produces a complete VECTOR result on the frequency axis.. (DFT can be done one bin at a time)


A Fourier transform is NOT equivalent to correlation. and contrary to your assertion, even the special case of Cosine transforms are not limited to ONE PERIOD of the basis function. By DEFINITION --- basis members at the higher frequencies cover MANY CYCLES of the basis function..

You can GET CORRELATION of two vectors from the Freq. Domain by multiplying their spectra and with prior conjugation of one of the complex input vectors..

All that --- top of my head, 1/2 my brain tied behind my back, no wiki, no internet..
So --- I'm prepared to reduce your stolen booty to horseshit.. Tell me why it would be worth it to me. And WHAT RELEVANCE you think it has to discussing the Sun....

So much wrong --- it would take me awhile...

So, what is your point?

You are the one that had a hissy fit when I pointed out that the Fourier transform is simply correlation.

Now you have changed your mind?

Yeah, sure, you find that equation in that form anywhere....

But it's not.. It LOOKS like a correlation because it's the integral of vector product. There are hundred of definitions in physics that look "similiar".. It the PURPOSE of the functions that matter and the prior constraints on symmetry, range, and basis function that make them all different.

Correlation and Convolution are ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME.. Looks almost the same, computes almost the same. Tell me grasshopper --- what is the difference there?

 

[konradv]

This recent info about man made global warming is all false. The Sun goes through what is
called a "Solar cycle", this is what is really heating up and cooling down the Earth. Man has
nothing to do with it. This has been going on for thousands of years. Increased Sun spot activity has been linked to this increased heating up of the earth. NOAA has documented this.

This talk of man made global warming is all a money making scam, aimed at charging
people throughout the world carbon fees.

Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is all false.!

It doesn't have to be an "either/or" question. They can both be true. Sun cycles are obviously real and can explain "pauses" in warming. But it's also a fact that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. Therefore, unless you can explain where the increase is coming from, AGW is also likely true.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW Mr. Snowjob.. It don't WANT to do this. If I wanted to ignore all your bullshit., there's a button for that.. We should only have this grudge cage match if YOU think its its important.

You're NOT on ignore because you're not a head case.. Or maybe I need to re-evaluate..

You are the one that said, "Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps"

So, now that we agree that is is just a method of correlation, what was your point?

My point is that you are full of shit, as that, as you say, "Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps" has absolutely no relevance. You are, at best, just presenting word salad.

Maybe to you it's word salad.. If we're gonna chat -- you need to quit telling me I'm fulll of shit..

The k-value in that chart is the number of FOURIER COMPONENTS in the frequency domain that are used to SYNTHESIZE that square wave.. The synthesis gets better of course the more you use.. (this is kinda the basis of JPEG and other compression schemes)

Tried to find a similiar synthesis example for a ramp..

And OF COURSE --- IT HAD PRIMARY RELEVENCE to the previous discussion because of the DOZEN or so "semi"-periodic NATURAL climate influences like AMO and PDO.

If you looking at a global average, all of these PERIODIC functions (that look like sinewaves) can end up constructing waveforms of various shapes. INCLUDING a temperature RAMP or maybe with some long observation time EVEN A HOCKEY STICK..

Do ya get it? Need some more pictures???

 

[flacaltenn]

There's a graphical example to help you visualize the actual addition of Fourier components to make a square wave approx.. Nothing to do with correlation actually.. EVERY data vector has a Fourier component synthesis.

 

[itfitzme]

Oh I got clues alright.. Make it worth my while to give em to you...
Other than the fact that most reasonable folks hate con men...

How about a clue?

Correlation to calculate r2 is a special case of the "correlation function" as defined in basic math. NOT applicable to general use unless you know a priori the relative time offset of the signal vectors.

Nobody would write it as 2 IDENTICAL INTEGRALS in the numerator. It would be represented as the square of ONE of those integrals. (Unless you stole it from a website trying to make a specific point and had no idea what you stole).

Cosine Transforms are ALSO just a special case of Fourier transform and have much limited use in analyzing freq. domain characteristics. True Fourier analysis produces a complex result using BOTH sine and cosine (or the equiv e exp(-jwt). It produces complex pair data so that both MAGNITUDE and PHASE of the resultantant bins is preserved. It also doesn't a SCALAR result like your r2 attempt.. It produces a complete VECTOR result on the frequency axis.. (DFT can be done one bin at a time)


A Fourier transform is NOT equivalent to correlation. and contrary to your assertion, even the special case of Cosine transforms are not limited to ONE PERIOD of the basis function. By DEFINITION --- basis members at the higher frequencies cover MANY CYCLES of the basis function..

You can GET CORRELATION of two vectors from the Freq. Domain by multiplying their spectra and with prior conjugation of one of the complex input vectors..

All that --- top of my head, 1/2 my brain tied behind my back, no wiki, no internet..
So --- I'm prepared to reduce your stolen booty to horseshit.. Tell me why it would be worth it to me. And WHAT RELEVANCE you think it has to discussing the Sun....

So much wrong --- it would take me awhile...

So, what is your point?

You are the one that had a hissy fit when I pointed out that the Fourier transform is simply correlation.

Now you have changed your mind?

Yeah, sure, you find that equation in that form anywhere....

But it's not.. It LOOKS like a correlation because it's the integral of vector product. There are hundred of definitions in physics that look "similiar".. It the PURPOSE of the functions that matter and the prior constraints on symmetry, range, and basis function that make them all different.

Correlation and Convolution are ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME.. Looks almost the same, computes almost the same. Tell me grasshopper --- what is the difference there?

It doesn't just "look like" correlation, it is correlation.

How hard is this to grasp for you? Each cosine and sine term, at integer frequencies, is correlated to original signal, yielding a multiplying factor.

It "look like" because it is. This is how math works. If A=B and B=C then A=B.

And the actual point, the one that Abraham has made repeatedly, is that just because we can come up with a series of functions that, when added together, create the same result as the original function, doesn't mean anything.

We can come up with all sorts of sets of equations that, when correlated to the original signal and added together with the appropriate multiplying constant, duplicate the original signal. We can do it with square waves, triangle waves, sine and cosines. We can even do it with a set of sinc functions that are both shifted in time and are multiples of the fundamental frequency. None of it means anything.

All you are saying, with your ""Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps" is that we can come up with all sorts of imaginary sets of functions that duplicate the original signal.

The problem is one of reality getting in the way. In reality, there isn't some other set of functions that correlate and add up to the signal in question, the temperature rise.